HomeMy WebLinkAbout20192429.tiffSUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, June 18, 2019
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Administration
Building, Hearing Room, 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado. This meeting was called to order by Chair,
Michael Wailes, at 12:30 pm.
Roll Call.
Present: Michael Wailes, Bruce Sparrow, Bruce Johnson, Gene Stille, Tom Cope, Lonnie Ford, Richard
Beck, Elijah Hatch, Skip Holland.
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Chris Gathman, and Tom Parko, Department of Planning Services; Lauren Light
and Ben Frissell, Department of Health; Mike McRoberts and Elizabeth Relford, Public Works; Karin
McDougal, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Motion: Approve the June 4, 2019 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, Moved by Bruce Sparrow,
Seconded by Gene Stille. Motion passed unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR19-0026
APPLICANT: PETERS 313 RANCH, INC, C/O SUMMIT MIDSTREAM NIOBRARA, LLC
PLANNER: KIM OGLE
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES INCLUDING
OIL AND GAS SUPPORT AND SERVICE (THREE (3) GAS COMPRESSORS
AND RELATED EQUIPMENT), UP TO FIVE (5) TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
OFFICE TRAILERS AND TEN (10) TEMPORARY CONEX FOR USE DURING
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FACILITY IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SUBX19-0010 BEING A PART OF THE NW4 NW4 SECTION 33, T12N, R63W
OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 65 SECTION LINE, APPROXIMATELY 1.2
MILES SOUTH OF CR 138.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, presented Case USR19-0026, reading the recommendation and comments
into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the
attached conditions of approval and development standards.
Mike McRoberts, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access to the site and drainage conditions
for the site. A Road Maintenance Agreement will be required.
Ben Frissell, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Tracey Jensen, Summit Midstream Niobrara, LLC, 707 Wapiti Avenue, Rifle, Colorado, stated that they are
proposing a small compressor station. She added that there are two oil and gas pads gathering the gas to
the already established Hereford maintenance facilities.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR19-0026 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval,
Moved by Bruce Johnson, Seconded by Bruce Sparrow.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 9).
Yes: Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Michael Wailes, Richard Beck,
Skip Holland, Tom Cope.
1
1. omn Ur>i cak; O rls
O-1/Ot/Iq
2019-2429
CASE NUMBER: USR18-0100
APPLICANT: PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO
PLANNER: CHRIS GATHMAN
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT FOR
A MAJOR FACILITY OF A PUBLIC UTILITY (ONE (1) 230KV TRANSMISSION
LINE EXTENDING APPROXIMATELY 10.4 MILES, ONE (1) NEW SUBSTATION
(GRAHAM CREEK) AND UPGRADES TO AN EXISTING SUBSTATION (WAPA
AULT SUBSTATION) IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
THE APPLICANT IS AMENDING THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION THAT WAS
ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED UNDER THE SAME CASE NUMBER. THE ORIGINAL
REQUEST READ (ONE (1) 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE EXTENDING
APPROXIMATELY 21 MILES, ONE (1) NEW SUBSTATION (GRAHAM CREEK)
AND UPGRADES TO AN EXISTING SUBSTATION (WAPA SUBSTATION) IN
THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THE TRANSMISSION LINE IS TO BE LOCATED IN SECTIONS 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10,
15, 22, 26, 27 AND 35, T7N, R66W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY,
COLORADO.
LOCATION: THE TRANSMISSION LINE RUNS FROM THE WAPA AULT SUBSTATION
LOCATED SOUTH OF CR 86 AND EAST OF CR 25 TO THE PROPOSED
HUSKY SUBSTATION (WITHIN THE TOWN LIMITS OF AULT). THE HUSKY
SUBSTATION WILL BE LOCATED EAST OF CR 33 AND SOUTH OF CR 86. THE
TRANSMISSION LINE THEN CONTINUES FROM THE HUSKY SUBSTATION
TO THE PROPOSED GRAHAM CREEK SUBSTATION SITE LOCATED EAST
OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 33 AND APPROXIMATELY 0.5 MILES NORTH OF
CR 74.
Chris Gathman Planning Services, presented Case USR18-0100, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Mr. Gathman referred to the Town of Eaton's referral and read it into the record.
A letter was received from Fisher, Brown, Bartlett & Gun on behalf of Collins Lateral, Pierce Lateral Ditch,
Larimer County Canal, New Cache La Poudre, and the Greeley #2 Ditch stating that any encroachment
within the ditches and ditch easements not be allowed without the ditch's prior written permission.
Therefore, a condition of approval has been attached requiring an agreement or another acceptable form
of authorization if any transmission structure or construction easements encroach into the ditch rights -of -
way. Mr. Gathman noted that a letter of objection regarding the proposed preferred route from the WAPA
substation to the proposed Husky substation outlining concerns that the transmission line will impact and
potentially disable the existing irrigation system on the property and impact irrigation supply to the Meisner
property to the south. Additionally, another letter was received from Leonard and Doris Trujillo who live
adjacent to the segment between the Husky substation to the Graham Creek substation outlining concerns
of impacts to farm production and impacts due to the change of the pivot and easement that may be
impacted by the transmission lin. Mr. Gathman noted that multiple letters from KUTAKROCK were received
on behalf of multiple property owners in opposition to this case and are part of the exhibits for today's
hearing. Mr. Gathman said that the way the corridor is shown the centerline is identified, however, there is
500 feet on either side to allow the applicant the ability to modify the location of the transmission line within
that area. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached
conditions of approval and development standards.
Mike McRoberts, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access to the site and drainage conditions
for the site. Mr. McRoberts requested an amendment to Condition of Approval 2.17 to replace "property"
with "Graham Creek Substation" for clarity purposes.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Larry Claxton, Public Service Company of Colorado, 1800 Larimer, Denver, Colorado, stated that the
project consists of a new substation, a new terminal at the WAPA Ault substation and two sections of
transmission lines. The primary benefits of the project are increased electric safety and service reliability
for the surrounding community. Additionally, it will replace the existing 44 kV transmission line which is
over 100 years old. Mr. Claxton provided an overview of the route, substation locations and the proposed
structures along the route.
2
Mr. Claxton said that they have had community outreach from 2017 to 2018. They submitted the original
application in 2018 which triggered several comments and concerns. As a result, to respond and work with
stakeholders and the Town of Eaton they amended the application into two (2) separate segments. He
added that they continue to perform outreach with the community, when requested, as well as work with
landowners on the project.
Mr. Claxton said that they started by defining the project, establishing the siting area and determining the
project scope. He provided a timeline of the process and the criteria that they analyzed from establishing
the siting area and project scope to determine the opportunities and constraints of the area. Additionally,
they held the three (3) open houses to receive input from landowners as well as two (2) public hearings
with the Town of Ault and they continue to have outreach to discuss easement agreements.
Mr. Claxton said that they are looking at having a 1000 -foot wide siting corridor (500 -feet on either side of
the transmission line) to allow them to do micro -siting. He added that the preferred route has the fewest
residences within 200 feet of the potential centerline and the fewest residences within a quarter -mile of the
preferred route. The benefits of following along the edges of property is that they can span the radius of
the center pivot with the transmission line. Essentially there will be a structure on each side so that the
agricultural activities can continue. He added that they will work with the landowners to minimize any
agricultural activities and when avoidance is not possible, appropriate compensation for system
modifications will be provided.
Mr. Claxton said that they will work with the impacted oil and gas companies for certain safety buffers that
they will require. He provided the analysis for siting the Graham Creek Substation within the area of the
Town of Eaton and their projected growth. He noted that the preferred location of the Graham Creek
Substation is better situated for the future growth.
In conclusion, Mr. Claxton stated that this project provides a preferred route that is located best to serve
the current and future electric demand while minimizing impacts to the land uses in the community, including
existing residential.
Commissioner Beck asked how many existing power lines will go away as they are replaced by this
transmission line. Mr. Claxton said that the existing 44 kV line would stay in place as back up to this
proposed transmission line. Once the Graham Creek to Cloverly line is constructed, they will be able to
remove the 44kV line completely. Mr. Beck asked what the timeline is for that. Mr. Claxton said that it
would be removed two to three years after the line is energized.
Commissioner Holland asked him to describe the meetings with the Town of Eaton. Mr. Claxton said that
they have met with Eaton four or five times through this process. They were asked to include an analysis
of a line east of Eaton (from Graham Creek to Cloverly) which they included in the open house. He added
that they have been cordial and productive meetings. He said that they have amended their application to
expand the siting study area between Graham Creek and Cloverly to see if there is a better transmission
line route separate from the preferred route. He feels that that the town has a better understanding of how
the substations are situated for future growth.
Commissioner Johnson said he heard the transmission lines can create adverse health issues from the
electromagnetic field and asked if that is true. Mr. Claxton said that studies show that EMF's are in
electrified components whether it is a transmission line or even components within your house. Studies
have shown EMF's associated with transmission lines do not create adverse health effects. Mr. Johnson
asked about the effect it has on crops under the transmission lines. Mr. Claxton said he is not aware of
that and does not have any studies to support that.
Commissioner Wailes asked what the driving factor is of this project and where the demand will be coming
from. Mr. Claxton said that expect to serve residential, oil and gas and commercial growth; however, they
have been told the growth of Eaton will be to the west and oil and gas growth could be all around.
Commercial and industrial loads in the Town of Eaton is in the southeast part of town and the preferred
Graham Creek site will still serve those.
Commissioner Ford asked if the EMF affects the GPS equipment used by farmers. Mr. Claxton said that
he doesn't know about the actual impact, but they will work with the farmers to mitigate it.
3
The Chair called a recess at 1:46 pm and reconvened the hearing at 1:55 pm
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Sara Irby, Fisher, Brown, Bartlett and Gun, 1319 East Prospect Road, Ft Collins, Colorado, stated that she
is here on behalf of Keith Amen and Dixie Meisner as they have land that will be impacted by the
transmission line. Ms. Irby also noted that she is representing the Water Supply and Storage Company,
Pierce Lateral Ditch Company, and the Mead Lateral Ditch Company and have provided comments on
behalf of New Cache Irrigating Ditch Company and the Collins Lateral, however she understands that they
won't be crossing these ditches at this time.
Mr. Irby referred to the Right to Farm Statement and added that it reminds them that agricultural users of
the land should not be expected to change their long established practices to accommodate intrusions of
urban users into a rural area. She said that the applicant's failure to fully analyze the impacts to agriculture
are clear. For Mr. Amen and Ms. Meisner, their livelihood is dependent upon ensuring that the applicant
meets the required condition that the benefit of the proposed development outweighs the reduction of
productivity of their farmland. Ms. Irby referred to Table 2 in the applicant's application which is designed
to show how they have complied with the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. However, she stated
that this table makes generalized and unsubstantiated conclusions.
Ms. Irby stated that Mr. Amen and Ms. Meisner were not contacted until June 3, 2019. She stated that
according to the application it states that only a small amount of land would be taken out of production,
however, she argued that the applicant appears to be indifferent to or ignorant of how the transmission
lines, towers and other infrastructure actually interfere irrigation operations and productivity.
Ms. Irby stated that the applicants are seeking approval based on an incomplete application and legally and
procedurally you cannot approve an incomplete application.
The Chair said that the claim is that the application is incomplete and asked Ms. Irby to provide specifics.
Ms. Irby said that the applicant has not analyzed the impacts to the agricultural community and they have
the burden of showing the effects and how can they do that without talking to the landowners and farmers.
Keith Amen, 15400 CR 86, Pierce, Colorado, stated that they support the Mayor of Eaton's comments as
well. He said that his property is within 1000 -foot corridor of the preferred route and added that he also is
speaking on behalf of Dixie Meisner in which he farms. Mr. Amen expressed concern regarding the impacts
to irrigation infrastructure (above ground and below ground irrigation system), groundwater wells, potential
interference with today's precision agriculture as John Deere has stated that there is a high potential that it
cause interference with GPS, crop spraying, decrease of property values, and unknown affects from
construction timing, the potential of electrocution with the maintenance of water wells in the corridor.
Commissioner Beck asked if his pumps run from electricity. Mr. Amen said that they are electric and added
that he is served by two electric companies — the Poudre Valley REA and Xcel Energy. He added that
Poudre Valley REA has the most reliable and cheaper power supply.
Commissioner Sparrow asked if anyone has discussed with him about placing a tower on their property.
Mr. Amen said that they were approached two weeks ago but they didn't have any pole placements. He
said that they did narrow their corridor and said it would be on Ms. Meisner's property and not his property.
The Chair referred to Ms. Irby who wanted to speak on behalf of the ditch companies. Ms. Irby said that
the Water Supply and Storage, the Pierce Lateral Ditch and the Mead Lateral Ditch has an existing and
valid right-of-way and easement that needs to be recognized during the placement of these transmission
lines and Colorado law requires that the placement of the towers and transmission lines don't unreasonable
interfere with the ditches and the ditch easements. She added that the height of the lines needs to be
considered with the maintenance of the ditches. Ms. Irby stated that the ditch companies have asked Public
Service to provide their plans and specifications for every crossing and enter into a written agreement with
the ditch companies.
4
Dustin Winter, 41555 CR 33, Ault, Colorado, stated that his property will be influenced by this project and
is concerned with the uncertainty of the transmission lines and structures. He had the understanding that
the structures were going to be built Ms. Meisner and the City of Thornton's properties. He said that he
was approached yesterday for obtaining an easement on his property because it will overhang on his
property. He added that he doesn't know how she can obtain an easement when there is currently an
easement for a gas line on his property. He expressed concern regarding the danger of the placement of
the power line over the top of the gas line that is in his yard as well as a decrease in property values.
Patsy Deines, 41474 CR 33, Ault, Colorado, stated that the Ault substation is 700 feet from her house and
the proposed transmission line will go down the length of her property. She has 5.5 acres and the line will
be 50 to 75 feet from her bedroom window. She is concerned with the power lines and believes it will
devalue their property.
Kevin Ross, Mayor of the Town of Eaton 1500 Falcon Ridge Road, Eaton, Colorado, stated that he
appreciates Public Service Company's continued efforts to find resolution and a solution to the placement
of power substations and transmission lines. The Town of Eaton has some major concerns regarding the
segmentation of this project and how it was filed with the State as it takes routing options off the table and
forces routes to go where they are opposed to in Segment II of this plan. The long-term vision for how the
town will grow will need to be taken into account. He said that the projected growth pattern is headed
towards the west and the south and the placements of the transmission lines and substations do not fit
within the character of their town. The new Ault (Husky) substation is located in their industrial area and
the Town of Eaton wants the subdivision in their industrial area as well. Mr. Ross said that they are also
concerned with the impacts of agricultural ground surrounding Eaton.
Commissioner Stille asked if they have said how many feeder lines there will be into the Town of Eaton.
Mr. Ross couldn't recall but understands that if Segment II were to get approved then the current Eaton
Substation eventually would be removed, and the feeder lines would be rerouted. Mr. Ross said that
Eaton's industrial area is to the east of Eaton and would like the substation located east of Town.
Commissioner Cope said that it seems no matter where the substation is located there will be the same
number of feeder lines and may have a greater impact from the substation than the feeder lines. Mr. Ross
said that electricity flows both ways and doesn't understand why the feeder lines can't go west just as easy
as they can come east. Therefore, he said that proponents of Graham Creek Substation III because of how
it fits with their community.
Commissioner Beck asked how long they have been working with the applicant. Mr. Ross said that they
have been working with them for about two years. Mr. Beck asked if they have been trying to work to move
the substation and lines from the west to the east side of town. Mr. Ross said that they have not waivered
in that sentiment.
Ken Skogg, Kutak Rock LLP, 1801 California Street, Denver, Colorado, stated that he represents a number
of landowners in this corridor including Lynn and Ryan Fagerberg own 1040 acres along the proposed
transmission corridor; Brad and Spencer Keirnes own 250 acres agricultural and residential property within
the Xcel study area; Russ Loeffler and Loeffler Family own approximately 1500 acres of agricultural
property along the proposed corridor and 60 acres of residential development within the Town of Eaton;
Arlen Anderson owns 160 acres directly in the proposed route and a total of 380 acres within the study
area; Ted Carlson owns 150 acres along the proposed transmission corridor and they all will be referred to
landowners or his clients. The corridor cuts across or is along all of their properties. The City of Thornton
demonstrates that this is not just a not in my backyard issue and will have more property impacted if the
line were to run to the east and to accept the Town of Eaton's recommendation for a Graham Creek III
location of that substation.
Mr. Skogg said that the landowners acknowledge the PSCO's need to upgrade and enhance electric
transmission in northern Colorado. However, they have serious concerns regarding the procedures
followed by PSCO in pursuing this application. Upon filing their 1041 application in August 2018, it was
based on a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) that was obtained from the Colorado
Public Utilities Commission (PUC). The project identified in the CPCN is the Northern Greeley Area
Transmission Plan Project. The project sought and received approval from the WAPA substation to the
Cloverly in Greeley and not just to Eaton. He said that they were told they amended the application so that
5
PSCO could have an opportunity to try and address some of the objections; however, their contention is
that it is to avoid having to deal with the overall impacts of their project and to ignore the specific issues
related to the running of the transmission corridor from Graham Creek to Cloverly.
Mr. Skogg referred to Weld County Code Section 21-2-200.B stating that a 1041 Application shall not be
accepted or processed until it is complete. The amended application which is only half of the project is in
incomplete and added that on that basis the recommendation should be for denial.
Mr. Skogg referred to a letter they submitted from Thomas Ghidossi who is a professional engineer licensed
in the State of Colorado and his findings of PSCO's design and application. He read the letter into the
record.
Mr. Skogg said that the Fagerbergs have underground drip systems and fear how this will be impacted by
the proposed lines. Mr. Skogg said that PSCO is empowered with the ultimate power of eminent domain
and they can exercise their right to take landowners property. He added that this project threatens this
irrigated prime farmland in Weld County and the growth.
Barney Hammond, PDC Energy, 3107 52nd Avenue, Greeley, Colorado, said that they hope to see this
project approved because of the lack of power capacity for their future plans and current locations. He said
that they would like to add additional power for their battery and facility sites planned for this area through
2025.
Commissioner Stille said that the sites could utilize generators. Mr. Hammond said that they run a third of
their locations off of generators due to lack of power in certain areas. He added that it wouldn't shut them
down, but they prefer to have power for all of their locations.
Commissioner Ford asked where most of their operations are located. Mr. Hammond said that
approximately 60% of their operations are to the east of Ault and Eaton and 40% to the west.
Mr. Claxton referred to the agricultural impacts associated with this project and said that they understand
all forms of irrigation including the underground drip irrigation system. He said that they can go through the
property or on the edge of properties. He added that they try to go on the edge of agricultural property as it
would minimize those impacts.
With regard to the 1000 -foot corridor, Mr. Claxton said they have tried to identify the general corridor that
they feel has the least impacts and it allows them to meet with the landowners and identify specifically
where that line could go. He added that this gives a second level analysis with the property owner to see
where they can adjust within that 1000 -foot corridor to help limit some of the potential impacts. He said that
they will continue to contact and communicate with landowners on how to best identify the final centerline
of the transmission line.
Commissioner Sparrow asked how sure they are of where the centerline will be. Mr. Claxton said that the
centerline allows them to do an analysis and added that it is hard to make that statement because that
means that they won't work with the landowners to see if there is a way to better shift that to accommodate
their concerns.
Commissioner Wailes said that he is concerned since they have been asked to essentially approve a
corridor and not a route. He added that 1000 feet is a wide corridor. Mr. Claxton said that the challenge is
finding routes that have the least impact and that is what this siting study did. Mr. Claxton was asked about
how many agreements/easements for the transmission line were in place. Mr. Claxton indicated the majority
of property owners have not signed agreements for the transmission line location. He indicated many were
waiting to see what action the County will take under this application before proceeding in negotiation with
the applicant as to the location of the proposed transmission line.
Commissioner Ford referred to the spraying of crops and the danger of pilots having to spray around
something this tall. He said that there is no detail in this application of where the structures will go and that
is what they would like to see. Mr. Claxton said that they will work with the landowners on the aerial concern.
He said that the advantage of the 1000 -foot corridor allows for shifting of the line to avoid any features.
6
Mr. Claxton referred to the comments that the application doesn't meet the criteria. He said that they feel
they have met all the criteria in the code. He added that they filed a CPCN with the Colorado Public Utilities
Commission (PUC) and this doesn't preclude a phased approach or filing multiple 1041 permit applications.
The PUC does not have local authority and added that their role is to determine present or future need and
that the proposed project would be an improvement justifying their costs for the project. He added that the
Colorado Revised Statutes does vest local governments rather than the PUC with its exclusive authority
over siting.
Mr. Claxton said that the locations of the substations are critical because they need to anticipate where the
growth is to best serve the community. He said that they are going to open up the expanded siting study
area for the Graham Creek to Cloverly substation. He added that to work with the community they are
willing to pause on the Graham Creek to Cloverly section to see if there is a less impactful route than
proposed.
Commissioner Beck asked why they haven't looked east of Eaton as suggested. Mr. Claxton said that they
have looked at alternatives east of town; however, their preferred substation location may be closer to their
industrial area and the majority of their total population growth, but just because it is an industrial area
doesn't necessarily mean it is a higher load and added that it depends on what those activities are in that
industrial area.
Commissioner Johnson asked why this line is needed and if it is because of a big demand from Greeley,
Loveland or Ft. Collins. Gilbert Flores, 1121 South Dover, Lakewood, Colorado, stated that this would
serve the entire area and to increase the reliability of the area, increase the load capacity for the 44 kV
system, and to accommodate resources to flow into the much larger grid. They intend to enhance the
whole system of Greeley, Eaton and Ault.
Commissioner Cope asked if they should evaluate just the transmission line or the substation because they
both have separate impacts. Mr. Gathman said that they are both included in the application. Mr. Cope
said that the substation is less compatible with the area over to the west since that will be a higher residential
area rather than somewhere on the east side of Eaton since there are more industrial areas. Mr. Claxton
said that if the substation were to locate at the Town of Eaton's preferred location, they would still highly
likely need a substation somewhere west of Eaton to accommodate that growth. He said that there would
be a substation to the east, but it likely wouldn't be as soon because of the projected population growth.
They will continue to study the Graham to the Cloverly but the preferred site to the west is better to meet
the existing and future needs.
Mr. Claxton said that the existing 44 kV line needs to remain energized until this project is completed. He
added that the right-of-way that they need for this project is wider than what the existing 44 kV needs.
Some of the 44 kV structures are within if not the existing road right-of-way it would be in the expanded
road right-of-way and their lines have to go outside of the projected rights -of -way per County requirements.
That pushes those lines potentially further away from the centerline of the road and further into people's
properties and potentially closer to existing residences. By expanding that right-of-way, it may bring
structures into the easement so there is a lot of challenges with the widened right-of-way.
The Chair called a recess at 4:06 pm and reconvened the hearing at 4:22 pm.
(Tom Cope left the hearing)
The Chair referred to the proposed amendment to Condition of Approval 2.17. Mr. McRoberts requested
the amendment as recommended.
Motion: Amend Condition of Approval 2.17 to read "Show and label the parking and traffic circulation flow
arrows showing how the traffic moves around the Graham Creek Substation", Moved by Bruce Johnson,
Seconded by Elijah Hatch. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in
agreement.
7
Commissioner Sparrow said that they are asking for permission to do something before they want to say
exactly where they want to put this so it gives them a lot of authority to instigate eminent domain later.
Commissioner Beck agreed and said that it was not good public relations for the applicant to bring up
eminent domain. As incomplete that he feels the application is, he doesn't think they have completed the
application satisfactorily.
Holland has sympathy for both aspects.
Motion: Forward Case USR18-0100 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the amended
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
denial, Moved by Skip Holland, Seconded by Richard Beck.
Commissioner Holland cited compliance with the Comprehensive Goals and Policies and concern over tack
of detail associated with the application. He referred to Table 2 in the application, the intent of the
agricultural goals is to support all forms of agricultural industry and at the same time to protect the rights of
the private property owners to convert their lands to other appropriate uses. Additionally, he quoted Item
C that land use regulations in the County should protect the infrastructure used for the delivery of water
users.
Commissioner Wailes said that historically with these cases they have been presented the route. He
understands that the size of the corridor provides flexibility for each landowner but until it is fully defined it
creates a lot of uncertainty for the landowner. He has reasonable faith that the applicant will be able to
address the concerns, but he can't operate on faith. Mr. Wailes cited Section 21-3-340.A.1 and Section
21-3-340.A.4 regarding health, welfare and safety and implementing a program that will satisfactorily
mitigate and minimize adverse impacts. He added that in an area that they don't know specifically where
that impact will be happening, he doesn't know that the applicant has developed a plan to mitigate any
impacts. Mr. Wailes said that we need power, but he would like to have seen a higher detail at that property
line level how this transmission line will work.
Commissioner Beck said that it turned out to be a deception, whether the applicant meant it or not, not to
show this portion of the transmission line in its full scale because their mistake might have been that they
already showed the full transmission line. He said that it should be viewed as a whole, and the applicant
should have told them what their ultimate goals are for the whole transmission line.
Commissioner Johnson agreed with Staffs listing of all the reasons that they were in support of the
application; however, he interprets those regulations differently. He cited Section 21-3-340.A.3 regarding
alternatives and added that they don't know the entire project and that they have negotiated in good faith
or made a diligent attempt to try and make this line compatible with each of the property owners. Mr.
Johnson cited Section 21-3-340.A.4 and added that everything has to have some compensation where it is
mitigating or minimizing in order for it to be dealt with.
Commissioner Sparrow doesn't understand why the applicant can't narrow the corridor down. He doesn't
want to see the point where the County gives up the ability to protect its citizens by passing this on and
giving it a right to do it.
Commissioner Ford said that the applicant should have more discussions with the landowners because of
the uncertainty about where this line will be and 1000 feet is just too much.
Commissioner Stille cited Section 21-3-340.A.1 through A.5. Mr. Stille suggested presenting the big picture
to the Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Hatch agreed with the Commissioner's comments and added that he is concerned that the
applicant has been unable to, according to the placement of the substation, convince this Board and the
Town of Eaton why it needs to be where it is.
The Chair called for the vote.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8).
8
Yes: Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Michael Wailes, Richard Beck,
Skip Holland.
Absent: Tom Cope.
Commissioner Wailes said that the application lacked the necessary detail for them to adequately assess
the impact and cited Sections 21-3-340.A.1, 21-3-340.A.3 and 21-3-340.A.4.
CASE NUMBER: USR19-0023
APPLICANT: GS FARMS LLC
PLANNER: CHRIS GATHMAN
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR ONE (1) SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT PER LOT OTHER
THAN THOSE PERMITTED UNDER SECTION 23-3-20.A OF THE WELD
COUNTY CODE (A SECOND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE FOR
AGRICULTURAL WORKERS), UP TO THREE (3) CARGO CONTAINERS AND
A USE PERMITTED AS A USE BY RIGHT, AN ACCESSORY USE, OR A USE
BY SPECIAL REVIEW IN THE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ZONE
DISTRICTS (AN OFFICE BUILDING FOR DISPATCH FOR A PLUMBING
BUSINESS ALONG WITH AN EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE BUILDING FOR
PLUMBING VEHICLES), PROVIDED THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOT A LOT IN
AN APPROVED OR RECORDED SUBDIVISION PLAT OR LOTS PARTS OF A
MAP OR PLAN FILED PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF ANY REGULATIONS
CONTROLLING SUBDIVISIONS IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT A REC EXEMPT RE -5065, PART NW4 SECTION 33, T2N, R68W OF THE
6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 5 (BULRUSH BOULEVARD) AND
APPROXIMATELY 3,600 FEET NORTH OF STATE HIGHWAY 52.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, presented Case USR19-0023, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Several letters and emails were received regarding concerns of traffic, dust,
hours of operation, that the commercial use is not compatible with the area, and the potential for impacts
on an existing eagle next in the proximity of this site. Mr. Gathman noted that a referral was received from
Colorado Parks and Wildlife which stated that the USR site is located less than a quarter -mile from an active
bald eagle nest and they recommend that no surface occupancy occur beyond which has historically
occurred with a quarter -mile of active nests. Additionally, the referral states that they recommend that the
applicants consult with Colorado Parks and Wildlife prior to construction to discuss potential impacts and
mitigation as it relates to the nest. The Town of Frederick, in their referral, stated that the property is located
on the Town of Frederick's Land Use Map and identifies the property as agricultural/estate residential and
is opposed to having the business located in this area. Mr. Gathman indicated that County Road 5 has
been annexed by the Town of Frederick and the Town of Frederick provided specific comments as to access
and right-of-way in their referral. The remaining areas (with the exception of County Road 5) are located
approximately 1,850 feet to the east of the site. The property is currently not located within in IGA boundary
or urban growth boundary. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application
with the attached conditions of approval and development standards.
Commissioner Ford referred to the 56 letters of opposition and asked how many homes are in this area.
Mr. Gathman said that a lot of the emails are from all over — some are local and some are out of state. He
added that they received a number of letters from the surrounding property owners and generally their
concerns are dealing with traffic, impacts to the roads, and the impacts of the business. Other letters have
the particular concern about the setback from the eagle nest.
Commissioner Sparrow asked if the nest is occupied. Mr. Gathman said that according to the Colorado
Parks and Wildlife letter, they said it is active.
Mike McRoberts, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access to the site and drainage conditions
for the site.
Ben Frissell, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
9
Kristie Shattuck, 85 Xavier Street, Denver, Colorado, stated that they are proposing a small agricultural
business on a 5 -acre parcel. They agree to comply with the conditions of approval and development
standards. Ms. Shattuck said that they plan to have a small horse boarding facility as well as Heritage
poultry breeding operation. She added that they would like to bring three (3) dispatchers to the property;
however, they won't have the company located on site. There will be a maintenance building for anything
related to the agricultural side along with some maintenance on the plumbing vehicles.
Commissioner Wailes asked how many vehicles are associated with the business. Ms. Shattuck said that
there are 16 vehicles. Mr. Wailes asked to clarify if the vehicles are stored on site.
Steve Gentry, 16520 Essex Road North, Platteville, Colorado, said the employees keep their vehicles at
their personal homes and added that it will be rare that they will be on this property. They will take the calls
and dispatch it to the employees who are out on job sites. He added that if a truck is on site it comes into
the maintenance shop and leaves. The equipment for the plumbing business will not be on site.
Commissioner Ford asked if it is 5 days or 7 days per week. Mr. Gentry said it is 7 days per week but there
are limited employees on the weekends. He added that no employees will be on the property on the
weekends.
Commissioner Ford asked about the proposed second home on the property. Mr. Ford asked since it is so
large if it will be a dorm or single-family dwelling. Ms. Shattuck said it will be a single-family home and
added that they wanted to provide with potentially the largest thing they could think of knowing that they
might not build it.
Commissioner Beck asked to describe the office building. Ms. Shattuck said that it will be used for the
packaging and selling for the Heritage poultry operation. She added that this would be combined with the
dispatch office.
Commissioner Ford asked if the horse boarding is only boarding or if it will be for training. Ms. Shattuck
said it will be for boarding only. There will be a total of five (5) horses on site.
Commissioner Ford asked if the plumbing business will be visible to the neighbors. Ms. Shattuck replied
no and Mr. Gentry said that they will not be advertising it.
Commissioner Wailes asked how the half -mile nest buffer is enforced because this can affect several
homeowners within this distance. Mr. Gathman said that according to the letter bald eagles are no longer
on the threatened or endangered list, but they are still protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and
the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. He added that this lot is a platted, buildable lot and per our
County Code someone could build a home and have use by right agricultural operations. Mr. Gentry said
that they were told when they start construction to contact the US Fish and Wildlife Service so they can
help them build without disturbing the eagles as much as possible.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
John Pritchard, 6789 CR 5, stated that he lives directly across the street from the proposed site. He stated
that he is speaking for over 30 citizens that are adjacent to or within a quarter -mile from the site. There is
a petition included in the handout provided with 38 local neighbors opposed to this proposed request. He
said that they are not opposed to the primary residence, poultry facilities and the horse boarding facilities.
However, they are opposed to the commercial plumbing uses and all associated facilities and the second
residence for agricultural workers.
Mr. Pritchard said that the answers to the questionnaire are misleading and confusing and it seemed to
purposefully conflate the plumbing with the agricultural uses to be able to answer questions in the best light.
He said that according to the questionnaire they contacted all the neighbors and only one (1) would talk to
them and he takes exception to that since he lives adjacent to the site and never has been contacted.
Mr. Pritchard said that this violates the comprehensive plan and the intent of the zone district. He expressed
concern that it is not compatible with the surrounding area and incompatible with the county's growth plans
for the area.
10
Mr. Pritchard stated that traffic is a major concern for them and the answers in the questionnaire were very
misleading. He added that there should be no noise, light pollution or signage. Mr. Pritchard expressed
concern regarding the second residence as it has been unclear as to the real purpose of this residence.
Commissioner Hatch asked to clarify the comments regarding signage and lighting. Mr. Pritchard said the
questionnaire said that the signage and lighting will be in accordance with the allowed regulations and it is
not very clear to them. Commissioner Wailes asked if signage is a use by right for agricultural operations.
Mr. Gathman said that the applicant and can have one (1) free standing sign up to 16 square feet in size.
Commissioner Holland asked if 20 parking spaces are allowed with a USR. Mr. Gathman said that 20
parking spaces seems a little excessive in this case. Commissioner Hatch asked if there is a certain number
of parking spaces allowed for use by right for the horse boarding operation. Mr. Gathman stated that we
don't regulate parking for a use by right. Mr. Hatch said that the site plan identifies a total of 30 parking
spaces with six (6) of them used for the horse boarding. Mr. Gathman said that we can include a condition
of approval that the applicant should provide an updated parking plan. Mr. Gathman stated that the only
uses on site that require a USR and are addressed under this application are the plumbing dispatch office,
the maintenance building for maintenance of plumbing vehicles, the proposed second residence and the
three (3) cargo containers.
Dana Bove, Front Range Nesting Bald Eagles Studies, stated that they are a nonprofit research group and
they study nesting eagles in the northern front range. Mr. Bove referred to the 40 letters and emails received
from the concerns of the eagles. He said that the equestrian center located adjacent to the nest and doesn't
believe that it is an interference for the eagles. Mr. Bove provided sites of the nesting eagles along the
front range and described their habitat and how development affects them.
Commercial Hatch asked what could happen if an investigation proved that this proposed project disturbed
the bald eagles. Mr. Bove said that there could be serious fines or they could go to jail but in this case he
doesn't know and added that he hasn't seen the US Fish and Wildlife actively prosecute offences like this
in the last couple of years.
Ms. Shattuck said that they did reach out to Ruth Anderson, who was the real estate agent, and she said
she would get the information out to the neighbors; however, she was unable to get that done. Ms. Shattuck
apologized and said it was not a malicious intent.
Ms. Shattuck said that this will be her home and this will not be a commercial business to ruin the
neighborhood. She said that the dispatch is to supplement their income. She added that they don't want
to have people at their home and doesn't believe it will be impactful as they say it will.
Mr. Gentry said that the original plan had 32 spaces because that's what they thought was expected. He
said that there will not be 32 spaces or people on site. He referred to the amended/updated site plan in the
staff power point presentation where much of the parking is removed. There will be three (3) people that
drive in the morning and out in the afternoon and the landowners coming in and out as normal. There will
not be a lot of lighting on site and added that there will not be any plumbing parts on site. The storage
containers will be used for storage for stuff for the chickens and stuff for maintaining the vehicles.
Ms. Shattuck said that the second home will be used for someone to help with the agricultural uses of the
animals.
The Chair asked Staff if they had any change to the resolution. Mr. Gathman said that the applicant
indicated that there would be no storage of plumbing materials or equipment on site and offered to include
a development standard if the Planning Commission wanted it. The Chair suggested bringing that up to
the Board of County Commissioners at that hearing. Commission Stille said that he wants to ensure that it
is brought to the Board of County Commissioners as a development standard.
Motion: Add Development Standard 5 that "The storage containers will used for agricultural purposes
only", Moved by Gene Stille, Seconded by Lonnie Ford.
11
Mr. Gathman clarified if there is no outside storage of plumbing equipment or materials associated with the
plumbing business. Commissioner Stille said that if this will be an agricultural use with horses and chickens
and three dispatchers, he doubts that there would be storage of plumbing supplies.
Commissioner Bruce suggested that no plumbing activities be stored on or in the buildings. The Chair
stated that the applicants have requested that one of the buildings will be used as a maintenance facility
for the plumbing vehicles. Mr. Johnson said that vehicle maintenance is different than plumbing supplies.
Motion: Amend the added Development Standard 5 to read "No plumbing supplies shall be inside the
building or outside of the building", Moved by Bruce Johnson, Seconded by Gene Stille. Motion carried
unanimously.
Commissioner Hatch said that the motion does negate the intent for the third container. He added that the
motion was for agricultural use only, but the applicant is wanting to store mechanic supplies for the vehicles
as well. Commissioner Johnson said that motion as amended doesn't allow for plumbing supplies on the
property. Mr. Hatch said that the amendment has been passed; however, the motion itself is to regulate
the containers to only be used for agricultural use so that would prohibit them from using the storage
containers at all for their commercial business. Mr. Johnson said that it serves both ways. The Chair said
that the amendment states that no plumbing supplies can be located on the property so they couldn't use
the storage containers for the commercial use. Commissioner Stille said that they could store agricultural
oil, gas and grease. Mr. Hatch agreed but the applicant's intent is to use it for storage of automotive supplies
for their maintenance shop for their commercial business. Mr. Stille said that it states an office building for
dispatch for a plumbing business along with an equipment maintenance building and added that is not a
container. Therefore, the maintenance building would include the oil and gas for the vehicles. The Chair
said that the amendment Mr. Johnson made and Mr. Stille seconded prohibits that on the entire property.
Mr. Johnson clarified that it is just plumbing supplies and parts and doesn't have to do with the maintenance
of the vehicles.
The Chair called for the vote.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 6, No = 2, Abstain = 0).
Yes: Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Richard Beck, Skip Holland.
No: Elijah Hatch, Michael Wailes.
Absent: Tom Cope.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in
agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR19-0023 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the amended
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, Moved by Gene Stille, Seconded by Bruce Sparrow.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 6, No = 2, Abstain = 0).
Yes: Bruce Sparrow, Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Michael Wailes, Richard Beck.
No: Bruce Johnson, Skip Holland.
Absent: Tom Cope.
Commissioner Holland said that he believes this lack of clarity couple with what the applicant said make it
very unclear what we are approving.
Commissioner Johnson said that it is too cluttered and not compatible to the surrounding uses.
The Chair called a recess at 7:16 pm and reconvened the hearing at 7:28 pm.
(Bruce Johnson left the hearing)
CASE NUMBER:
PRESENTED BY:
REQUEST:
ORDINANCE 2019-09
ELIZABETH RELFORD
IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND REENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS,
CHAPTER 8, PUBLIC WORKS, OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE
12
Elizabeth Relford, Public Works, introduced Ordinance 2019-09, and stated that as part of the 1041 code
changes they are updating and cleaning up Chapter 8.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Motion: Forward Ordinance 2019-09 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Planning
Commission's recommendation of approval, Moved by Gene Stille, Seconded by Elijah Hatch.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Bruce Sparrow, Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Michael Wailes, Richard Beck, Skip Holland.
Absent: Bruce Johnson, Tom Cope.
CASE NUMBER:
PRESENTED BY:
REQUEST:
ORDINANCE 2019-10
TOM PARKO
IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND REENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS,
CHAPTER 21 AREAS AND ACTIVITIES OF STATE INTEREST, OF THE WELD
COUNTY CODE
Tom Parko, Planning Services, introduced Ordinance 2019-10 and stated that a resolution was recently
passed by the Board of County Commissioners to designate all unincorporated areas of Weld County under
Areas and Activities of State Interest for mineral resource development. Therefore, this Ordinance will
clean up portions of Chapter 21 and create a new Article V to accommodate the new 1041 WOGLA rules.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Motion: Forward Ordinance 2019-10 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Planning
Commission's recommendation of approval, Moved by Michael Wailes, Seconded by Elijah Hatch.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Bruce Sparrow, Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Michael Wailes, Richard Beck, Skip Holland.
Absent: Bruce Johnson, Tom Cope.
CASE NUMBER:
PRESENTED BY:
REQUEST:
ORDINANCE 2019-11
TOM PARKO
IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND REENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS,
CHAPTER 23 ZONING (1041 OIL AND GAS RESOURCE AREA), OF THE WELD
COUNTY CODE
Tom Parko, Planning Services, introduced Ordinance 2019-11 and stated that this repeals everything under
Chapter 23 dealing with WOGLA and moving it over to Chapter 21.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Motion: Forward Ordinance 2019-11 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Planning
Commission's recommendation of approval, Moved by Gene Stille, Seconded by Elijah Hatch.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Bruce Sparrow, Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Michael Wailes, Richard Beck, Skip Holland.
Absent: Bruce Johnson, Tom Cope.
CASE NUMBER: ORDINANCE 2019-12
PRESENTED BY: ELIZABETH RELFORD
REQUEST:
IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND REENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS,
CHAPTER 8 PUBLIC WORKS, CHAPTER 12 LICENSES AND PERMITS, AND
CHAPTER 23 ZONING, OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE
13
Elizabeth Relford, Public Works, introduced Ordinance 2019-12 and stated that this will take the stormwater
drainage out of Chapter 23 and moving it into Chapter 8 as well as clean up for Chapter 12. She added
that this will also include Transport Permits.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Motion: Forward Ordinance 2019-12 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Planning
Commission's recommendation of approval, Moved by Elijah Hatch, Seconded by Lonnie Ford.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Bruce Sparrow, Elijah Hatch, Gene Stifle, Lonnie Ford, Michael Wailes, Richard Beck, Skip Holland.
Absent: Bruce Johnson, Tom Cope.
The Chair asked the public if there were other items of business that they would like to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
Meeting adjourned at 7:44 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Y
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
14
Hello